The use of tax money to enforce mandatory treatment has attracted mixed reactions across the globe. Often, people look at this issue from different perspectives based on their social, economic or religion aspects. Proponents of this debate argue that just like terrorism, robbery and burglary among other crimes are fought using the tax money; drug menace is also a menace that should be treated with some serious concern since the drug abuse and consequent addition lead to criminal activities in the society.
The proponents also emphasize that those who are already addicted to crime have the tendency of engaging in criminal activities, perhaps to find a way of escaping the reality. Therefore, treating the addicts is a way of stopping them from engaging in crime, thus spending money on such is a noble course that is worth taking.
In relation to the above, drug addiction is responsible for the occurrence of some of the most costly problems in America. These include, but not limited to chronic illnesses, spread of HIV/AIDS virus, domestic violence and homelessness. This particular aspect makes the proponents of using money to fight drugs justified because it is less costly to prevent than to cure.
The amount of money spent on illegal drugs is also very high. Indeed, it is so high that at times it surpasses the government expenditure on the basic necessities. For example, in 1998 alone the number of drug addicts in America spent more than 67 billion dollars to acquire those illegal drugs, which was higher than the amount spent to finance the public higher education (King & Mauer, 2002).
Therefore, such statistics are used by the proponents to advance their arguments that if such large amounts of money were used to finance public universities and colleges, then the institutions could have been able to accommodate twice as many students as they did.
The federal government also uses a lot of money to fight the drug cartels and smuggling of drugs in America. However, this heavy expenditure can be reduced if the government embarks on a massive campaign to treat the drug addicts.
This would help in reducing the demand that makes America is not a potential market for the illegal drugs. Therefore, many joint forces are involved in fighting the drug cartels, which is a risky and costly venture. As it still stands, it would be cheaper and less risky to treat any drug addict than to spend the same tax money to fight the drug cartels.
Considering the negative effects of drugs on human health it is a worthy course of action to spend money to treat the drug addicts. For instance, drug and substance abuse such as smoking tobacco affect the lungs. Consequently, one suffers deadly diseases such as lung cancer that is not easy to manage and treat.
This has forced the government to put in place very strict laws and heavy taxes on tobacco manufacturers. It is not even permitted to smoke in public places since this spreads the infection. Therefore, we should use tax money to treat such addict so that the spread of the disease can be stopped in the long term.
Conclusion
In sum, it is agreeable that the significance of using tax payers money to fund the mandatory treatment of drug addicts is a necessary and worthy course. Though, the government spends a lot of money on it, it helps many people; it is more efficient and cost effective in the long term. Therefore, the government should be at liberty to spend money on this worthy course of action that would benefit many people and cut down on its expenditures in the long term.
Reference
King, R. S., & Mauer, M. (2002). Distorted Priorities: Drug Offenders in State Prison. The Sentencing Project. Web.
Americas war against recreational drugs is an example of good intentions gone wrong. While this country squanders over billions of dollars annually on the efforts to stop illegal drugs, trafficking and use continue. It has been said that trying to stop drugs is like trying to stop the rain, still, the war continues and was a prominent issue.
Over half of the prisoners in jail are there for drug crimes. This causes overcrowding which results in the early release of dangerous, violent criminals. It is illogical from a societal view and inhumane to individuals who are marked as criminals for life for the activity that causes no harm to others. Those who are addicted receive little or no therapeutic help in prison. Instead of imprisoning people that need help, rehabilitation programs are a much more effective method to treat the problem but a rehabilitation system will not succeed if drugs continue to be illegal. Drug abusers will hardly seek help from the same government that tosses them in jail for the same thing.
The hypocrisy of the drug war is apparent. All illegal drugs combined account for about 4,500 deaths in this country per year while tobacco is responsible for the deaths of 400,000 people annually and alcohol ends 80,000 peoples lives every year. (Fu, 2006) Legislators will not ban smoking because they indicate regulation regarding what adults do in privacy including what they can put into their bodies is unconstitutional and an infringement on personal liberties. Everyone can differentiate the distinction between a person that takes in an occasional alcoholic beverage and one who commits crimes while drunk. Why cant this simplistic reasoning be applied to drug users? Our code of law is founded upon a principle of presumptive rationality. Rational adults should be allowed to make personal choices as long as those actions cause no harm to others. The U.S. government is unequivocally unjustified in choosing this particular personal freedom to ignore at such a colossal cost to society (Fu, 2006).
The results of the King/Mauer study indicated that at least half of the drug-related arrests taking place in the United States, at least half of them are made for marijuana possession by predominantly low-level users whose cases rarely result in a felony conviction. The threat of imprisonment is not sufficient to keep citizens from partaking in the drug, nor is it effective in ensuring the drug is not available on the street. This complete lack of any kind of tolerance for the casual marijuana user and its effects on funding, relations with the populace, and inability to accomplish its objective in the United States can be contrasted with the more relaxed legal structure adopted in other countries such as England and Holland. While marijuana remains illegal in the UK, it is no longer mandatory that casual users of the drug must be arrested when caught. Instead, an arrest can be detained until exacerbating circumstances arise, such as the use of the drug in the presence of minors. This move was made, according to Home Secretary David Blunkett, to free up police resources to fight hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine. (King/Mauer, 2005)
The costs of prohibition go far beyond the mere funding of legal authorities and transportation for search and seizures. Economists who are actively involved in the drug policy in some way found three key issues upon which a very general consensus could be found. First, most economists found the current policy to be somewhat ineffective, very ineffective, or harmful. Second, most economists agree that the current policy should be changed. Third, most economists agree that the policy should be changed in the general direction of liberalization. Disagreement is generally based on the direction and degree of liberalization. (Thornton, 2002) Other costs include additional drug-related crime that is the result of users attempting to gain enough money to fulfill their demand in response to artificially high prices thanks to the lack of supply. Public health problems like HIV and Hepatitis C are all exacerbated by zero tolerance laws that restrict access to clean needles. (Drug Policy Alliance, 2006).
People who are at most casual users of drugs are arrested and incarcerated for mere possession charges, actions that do not take more drugs off the streets, or encourage more people to stop using the drugs. At the same time, arresting possessors of drugs creates an encumbrance on society as tax dollars go to support these people no longer free to hold a job outside prison walls and bringing more children into the welfare system, contributing to their subsequent failure and dependence on society. Initial conceptions of the drug-crime relationship were drawn from studies of criminality that involved alcoholics and those addicted to narcotics. These studies substantiated the perception that violent crimes are associated more so with alcohol use, whereas other drug use is associated with crimes involving property to secure money for drugs. Many studies that include drug-related crime do not give weight to the fact that a substantial proportion of inmates convicted of property crimes were under the influence of alcohol (in addition to another drug) at the time of the offense. (White/Gorman, 2000) These and other issues demonstrate the lack of complete and uniform definitions regarding drug-related crime.
The entire basis behind drug prohibitions in the war on drugs is in limiting the supply. The premise holds that by limiting the supply to make it virtually impossible to acquire, the demand for such products will automatically dissolve. Prohibition strategies that focus on blocking the supply lines have proven to be ineffective. However, the efforts that have been expended have made bringing these substances into the country high-risk ventures. The high risk enables distributors to charge more for their products based on the risk involved in delivery, which makes it an attractive proposition for organized crime. Those interested in working in the drug trade take risks not only in terms of running against the law but also in terms of running against other criminally minded distributors, who are not regulated or controlled by any governing body and therefore have only themselves to answer to. The strategies involved by these individuals do not follow the typical rules of conducting business. Instead, they rely on violence and corruption. Thanks to the laws restricting the flow of these substances, they also have access to practically unlimited funds that make it possible for them to purchase their way through the legal system. (Slater, 2006).
Although the issue of what to do about dangerous, possibly addicting drugs such as heroin and cocaine have long been issues within many countries, the approaches taken to stem the tide have had widely varying results. Particularly, the prohibition approach taken by countries such as the United States has led to an astronomical increase in the rates of crime and numbers of incarcerated individuals as a result while having little to no impact upon the actual availability and usage rates within the countrys borders. The statistics regarding the numbers of individuals currently using drugs at least as a recreational activity remain stable even as drug busts and numbers of people incarcerated for drug possession continue to rise, indicating greater quantities of drugs being smuggled into the country and greater degrees of organization within the crime syndicates that accomplish this. Rather than dissolving the demand for these substances, the attempted block on supplies not only fails to adequately block trafficking, but it leads to greater degrees of violence and corruption by ensuring this industry remains in the hands of criminals.
Work Cited
Drug Policy Alliance. England. Drug Policy Around the World. (2006). Web.
King, Ryan S. & Mauer, Marc. The War on Marijuana: The Transformation of the War on Drugs in the 1990s. Washington D.C.: The Sentencing Project. (2005).
Slater, Michael. New Anti-Drug Program Shows Phenomenal Success by Focusing on Positives. Medical News Today. Sussex: MediLexicon International. (2006).
Thornton, Mark. Prohibition vs. Legalization: Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Drug Policy? Paper presented to Southern Economic Association Convention. New Orleans, LA. (2002).
White, Helene Raskin & Gorman, D.M. Dynamics of the Drug-Crime Relationship. The Nature of Crime: Continuity and Change. Washington D.C.: National Criminal Justice Reference Service, p. 196. (2000).
American community concentrates a marvelous number of power and reserves on drug related matters. During the 1970s and 1980s the federal government mannered a War on Drugs expanding billions of dollars on law empowerment programs alone. All stages of management from regional to nationwide concentrate considerable resources on training, law empowering, ruling and security matters related to drugs.
On an individual level, most Americans devour more than one type of psychoactive drug. Given these actualities, it is crucial that people as a community realize our use of and performances linked with drugs. This paper is aimed to address a basic element of these matters, namely, is frivolous psychoactive drug usage normal performance? (Bachman, 1997)
Definition of Use
Essential to this conversation is a realization of what recreational psychactive drug taking is and is not. Drug expenditure can be classified into the districts of drug use and drug neglect.
Drug abuse is using a drug to such a degree that it really augments the threat or damages the capability of the person to sufficiently perform or cope with their situations.
A very significant but slightly mentioned fact about drug use in the USA is that the majority is use not neglect, with the exemption of tobacco customers 90% of whom are addicts. (Feigelman, 2000)
The occurrence of current drug neglect or confidence among individuals who accounted unlawful drug consumption was 4.19%. The first indications of drug abuse generally happened within two to three years after starting banned drug use and the middle length of a case of drug abuse / reliance was four to five years. The current debate is concentrated on drug use and supposes that drug neglect is unusual by different measures.
How many American matures have never used an over the counteract or direction drug, never tried a beer or a cola, never smoked nor taken any of the innumerable of other drugs that are so abundant in current community?
Confirmation also signs that American youth use more drugs than teenagers in other developed states. Of the millions of youngsters who test with or use drugs, the overpowering preponderance go on to maturity without a drug abuse mater. (Naylor, 2007)
Why Do People Take Psychoactive Drugs?
What inspires people to take drugs? There have been countless assumptions offered to clarify drug use as psychopathology. Broader incentive assumptions have been less general and less fully enhanced. Cohen classified eleven reasons for drug taking, as follows:
Physical, comprising recreation, inspiration and release from decease;
Sensory, to amplify the senses;
Emotional, to alleviate negative mood conditions;
Interpersonal, which comprises use to gain peer reception or to challenge power shapes, as well as to break down communications difficulties or to strengthen relations;
Social, with both endorsement of social alter and tuning out unbearable common circumstances;
Political, to articulate political complaint;
Intellectual, to avoid mental monotony or to gain new inspirations or resolve matters;
Creative Aesthetic, to improve imagination or gratification of the arts;
Philosophical, to gain imminent into the notions of life or other theoretical issues;
Spiritual Mystical, to accomplish transcendence or clarification;
Miscellaneous, comprising adventure, risk searching for, drama or dribbles (Stuck, 2003)
He also renamed Cohens sundry motivation as Adventure / Curiosity. He stated that the key cause for drug consumption was Physical Sensory, pursued intimately by Adventure / Curiosity. Affecting reasons were third, pursued by Creative / Aesthetic and Social / Interpersonal.
Bowker stated that various reasons were linked with the use of various drugs. He stated that drugs were used predominantly for Physical reasons; hallucinogens were consumed for Adventure / Curiosity and Creative / Aesthetic reasons and to a smaller extent for rational and Social/Interpersonal reasons; and marijuana were consumed for Adventure/Curiosity, Creative/Aesthetic, Social/Interpersonal, and Emotional matters. Cocaine was not involved in Bowkers study. (Isralowitz, 2005)
Secondary school apprentices accounted using marijuana chiefly for Adventure / Curiosity and Creative / Aesthetic motives but Physical / Sensory, Emotional, and Social / Interpersonal reasons also had significant role. Hallucinogens were consumed overpoweringly for Creative / Aesthetic reasons, but a considerable preponderance of users were also stimulated by motives of Adventure / Curiosity. Drug using students accounted Adventure/Curiosity and poignant reasons. Bowker did not account the reasons of college scholars in any feature.
With the benefit of hindsight over the previous remarks, it is clear that the possible motives for using drugs are just about as varied as the total range of incentives for all human actions. Drugs are not consumed for unique motives which are precise only to drugs, nor are they taken mostly for pathological motives. They are taken by various individuals for various causes and by the same person for dissimilar motives during various periods.
The Concept of Normality and Drug Use
Statistical ordinariness is simply those performances in which a preponderance of populace connect. From the position of a normal curve replica normal performance would group around the mean while anomalous performance would be two or more standard divergences away from the denote. Since the majority of matures and teenagers use psychoactive drugs, drug use is commonly usual behavior. Drug neglect or a complete deficiency of drug taking activities is generally abnormal.
If one divides legal and illegal utilization a somewhat various picture appears. Illegal drug custom speeds are lower than the use of lawful drugs.
Medical deviation would be those performances, confusions or conditions which health experts categorize as displaying pathology or sickness. Instances would comprise pneumonia, cancer, bipolar confusion and schizophrenia. For drug taking performance the criteria for medical irregularity would be those for Substance Abuse Disorder or Substance Dependence Disorder as stated in the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. (Bachman, 1997)
In accordance with DSM IV, the necessary attribute of Substance Abuse is a maladaptive prototype of material use cleared by recurring and important unpleasant results related to the repeated application of matters . The principles for the confusion are that repeated use of the drug has outlined in at least one of the subsequent: failure to complete major role compulsions at work, school or home, use in circumstances in which it is bodily dangerous, repeated lawful matters, or unrelenting social or interpersonal matters.
The significant feature of Substance Dependence is a bunch of cognitive, behavioral, and physiological indications revealing that the person goes on taking of the drug despite important associated problems .
The analysis may be related when three or more of the subsequent criteria are coincided: patience; withdrawal; loss of control; unrelenting wish to or incapability to cut down; a great amount of time used for gaining, using and recuperating from results of the narcotic; giving up other performances in order to use the drug; went on using in spite of physical or mental matters reasoned by use. The mild, infrequent or leisure use of drugs, whether lawful or illicit clearly does not convene these criteria of scientific irregularity.
DSM IV, in fact, explicitly states that, Substance Related Disorders are discriminated from non-pathological material use& by the attendance of lenience, withdrawal, obsessive use, or matter assisted matters .
Moral familiarity is disturbed with the standard of right and wrong in connection to human exploit and temperament. Lots of persons view drug expenditure, chiefly of alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs, as ethically incorrect.
Their dutiful dogma, for instance, may categorize this performance as a sin and next to the will of God. Conversely, Lots of others regard drug taking as performance that is not an honorable matter but rather an issue of personal choice or as an ethically satisfactory selection.
Legal ordinariness relays to the position of a performance in connection to the judicial structure. Nothing unlawful is abnormal while all legal performances are standard. The allocation or ownership of illegal drugs and the allocation of alcohol and tobacco to minors are thus lawfully abnormal.
Whereas, the ownership of or allocation to matures of alcohol and tobacco is lawful and usual under most situations. Exemptions to this would comprise drinking and driving and smoking tobacco in legally forbidden areas.
Probable benefits of this meaning comprise the clear, communally stated laws that public know about and can select to obey. Clifford states, though, that drug law enforcement differs across America contributing to augmented pessimistic outcomes of drug abuse in racial and racial minorities.
References
Bachman, Jerald G., et al. Smoking, Drinking, and Drug Use in Young Adulthood: The Impacts of New Freedoms and New Responsibilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997.
Feigelman, William. Treating Teenage Drug Abuse in a Day Care Setting. New York: Praeger Publishers, 2000.
Isralowitz, Richard E., and Darwin Telias. Drug Use, Policy, and Management. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2005.
Naylor, Adam H., Doug Gardner, and Len Zaichkowsky. Drug Use Patterns among High School Athletes and Nonathletes. Adolescence 36.144 (2007): 627.
Stuck, M. F. Adolescent Worlds: Drug Use and Athletic Activity. New York: Praeger Publishers, 2003.
One belief challenged by the sociological perspective was that cigarettes and alcohol belonged to drugs. Before reading this chapter, I thought that, given that alcohol and cigarettes were legal, occasionally used by many people, and sometimes even advertised, they referred to substances other than drugs. I believed that there was nothing criminal in moderate consumption of alcohol because it was a common attribute of various celebrations or young peoples gatherings. Furthermore, when it comes to the discussion of drugs in the media, alcohol and cigarettes are rarely mentioned. For example, in his article about drug abuse, Rosenstein (2018) talks about opioids, such as fentanyl and heroin, paying no attention to tobacco and alcohol. However, Goode (2015) calls alcohol and cigarettes the legal drugs and states that they are consumed by a much larger number of people than illicit drugs are. In addition, because of their legality, alcohol and tobacco have higher consumption and loyalty levels (Goode, 2015). I have realized that these two substances should also be considered drugs because they have a negative societal impact.
I have also understood that, in order to have a correct perception of drug use trends, one should look at objective data rather than vivid and memorable images. Goode (2015) mentions several examples of peoples distorted understanding of drug use because of their reliance on striking images rather than facts. While I was not one of those people who thought that prohibition increased alcohol use, I indeed believed in the trueness of the psychedelic sixties, inspired by the images of the hippie culture. However, the use of LSD rose only in the late 1960s and 1970s, while during 1960 and the mid-1960s, its level of use was low and rose slowly (Goode, 2015). Hence, I have realized that I need to search for reliable facts when assessing drug use trends and impact rather than rely on commonly available images.
References
Goode, E. (2015). Drugs in American society (9th ed.). McGraw Hill Education.
Rosenstein, R. J. (2018). Fight drug abuse, dont subsidize it. The New York Times.
Stories about drugs are often covered by the news media. Illegal drug use and abuse are portrayed as having extremely harmful consequences, from causing serious health problems to lethal drug overdose cases (Goode, 2014). Legal drugs, such as alcohol and nicotine, however, do not receive as much attention in the media coverage, and the question of why this is so might need further consideration.
Although international studies have revealed that legal drugs are much more harmful than illegal ones, news reports still seem to mostly cover stories about incidents and deaths caused by illegal drug abuse. Researchers have found that combined tobacco and alcohol use cost more than a quarter of a billion disability-adjusted life-years worldwide , while Illegal drugs only accounted for tens of millions (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2018). The lack of attention given to illegal drugs in the press can be attributed to a number of possible reasons.
Firstly, people who die as a result of illicit drug use are generally younger than those who die of diseases caused by alcohol abuse or smoking. This may make the public see illegal drugs as a greater evil, with news media raising more awareness about this problem, and ignoring the fact that legal drugs can be just as habit-forming as legal ones. Secondly, the distinction between legal and illegal drugs by itself may be the reason why news media and the public tend to underestimate the problem. While many people claim they do not trust the government, when it comes to issues like this, they probably do. Making one type of drug illegal and another one legal on the governmental level gives people the idea that this division is valid, and the government made sure to prove the former types relative safety.
Nevertheless, it has to be stated that all types of drugs are harmful and can destroy ones health, work, family life and relationships. Raising awareness about one type of drug and ignoring another can pose the danger of creating common misconceptions about how damaging all of these drugs are. News media is one of the most important types of media, and its principles should include aiming to provide people with accurate information, especially when it concerns public health.
Reference
Goode, E. (2014). Drugs in American society. McGraw-Hill Education.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. (2018). Legal drugs are more dangerous than many illegal ones, a study finds. Web.
I would write the drug policy based on the principle that harm reduction is focused on recognizing the dignity and humanity of people who use drugs and bringing them into a community of care. This would help reduce negative repercussions and promote optimal health and social inclusion, as opposed to a punitive approach to problematic drug use. In this way, I would suggest stopping persecuting former drug dealers and addicts in recovery. Such sanctions such as denial of public housing and school loans are ineffective; they are solely punitive and serve no purpose. Besides, I assume it would be right to consider offering positive incentives, such as financial payouts, to former addicts who pass a clean test. Finally, to prevent heroin overdoses, I think it would be effective to develop such harm reduction programs as needle exchange, supervised injection locations, and the distribution of naloxone kits are being implemented. In addition, funding studies that look into the medical applications of currently illegal drugs like marijuana and heroin can also be effective.
I was very interested in the chapter Four Proposals to Reform the Drug Laws and the concepts presented in it. The reason is that I find those concepts important to better understand drug laws and any ways that they can be changed or improved. Thus, I think that the most significant terms are legalization and decriminalization. The process of legalization entails the removal of all legal restrictions. When the drug would be available for purchase and use at will to the general adult population, analogous to tobacco and alcohol, Psychoactive medications might be acquired on the open market, off the shelf, by anybody over a particular age under this idea (Goode, 2015, p. 452). Meanwhile, decriminalization means that anyone could make, grow, or import any quantity of any narcotic and sell it to anyone after it was decriminalized. Aside from obvious toxins, the only factor that should govern the sale of medications should be the operation of a free and open commercial market. Those concepts define an unusual way of changing drug laws. Nevertheless, they are widely discussed, and I think that it is crucial to understand their meanings and differences between each other.
Reference
Goode, Erich. (2015). Drugs in American society (9th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Illicit drug use remains a persistent problem in American society. However, despite a variety of data collection methods being available, none can provide comprehensive information on drug use among different populations in the country on their own. This essay will discuss one of the information collection systems, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), its weaknesses, and how they can be strengthened.
NSDUH is currently the most thorough drug data collection survey in the United States. According to Goode (2015), the surveys findings are highly dependable, especially among the adult population. NSDUH can be argued to be the most reliable collection method as it allows for the gathering of data from different populations as participants are selected at random (NSDUH, 2021). Its main weaknesses are failure to account for homeless people and people residing in correctional or long-term medical facilities. In addition, the data collected from adolescents cannot always be relied upon as adults are often present when they answer the survey questions (Goode, 2015). The random selection procedure can include homeless shelters and their residents and penal institutions to address these weaknesses. However, it is imperative to ensure the confidentiality of responses and adjust the survey format to achieve it. Furthermore, it is recommended to change the format for the adolescents to ensure their answers are not affected by the presence of an adult. Overall, addressing the lack of representation of the marginalized population in the survey and guaranteeing privacy for adolescent participants will help make NSDUH more reliable.
In summary, it is imperative to collect accurate data on drug use among different populations and communities in the United States to adequately and competently address the problem. Although the NSDUH survey is exceptionally reliable, it would benefit from ensuring more diverse populations are included to illustrate varied illicit drug and alcohol abuse tendencies. Addressing these weaknesses will result in more exhaustive data collection and knowledge of drug use in the country.
References
Goode, E. (2015). Drugs in American society (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Drugs can be catastrophic for people; however, it is difficult for them to stop using drugs once they have started. Drug usage can begin due to various reasons, from entertainment to treatment. Due to their nature, drugs can make people addicted despite the negative consequences they produce; thus, personal control over drug usage is inefficient, and it may be almost impossible for a person to quit. In that case, only the external control over the drug possession, use, and distribution can effectively reduce negative impacts on the population.
The drug legislation bears the attitude and perception of various policymakers throughout history. While the goals of policymakers may have been different and mixed in unexpected combinations, in most cases, battles against drugs were carried out under the banners of healthcare and protection (Goode, 2014). Considering the substantial harmful effects of most known drugs on human health, the policymakers claims seem to be somewhat relevant. Especially in the light of the fact that some drugs were poorly studied at the time when the decisions about their usage were made. Therefore, it can be said that drug legislation is not just a function of bias against pleasure or the people who use certain psychoactive substances.
It is important to note that the attempts to illegalize more widely accepted substances sometimes lead to disastrous consequences, such as the unprecedented rise of organized crime (Goode, 2014). At the same time, the ban on such drugs as cocaine or opium did not have comparable effects on society and the economy due to marginalization; thus, the policymakers attitudes and actions are understandable. Moreover, demonizing the substances used by the smaller share of the population was easier; therefore, the fight against them was more effective. Accordingly, some of the substances are used widely today, and some are still banned and marginalized.
There were attempts to divide drugs based on objective factors. Some of the most common drugs were put into various categories in the US in the 20th century; they were sorted based on their medical utility and potential for abuse (Goode, 2014). However, the lack of research on drugs and other substances, in general, made their objective harm ranking almost impossible. Furthermore, in many cases, the artificially created perception of the drugs potential harm may have more impact on its legal status than its actual one.
Reference
Goode, E. (2014). Drugs in American Society. VitalSource Bookshelf.
People that have experienced drug addiction give multiple reasons why they have decided to try narcotic drugs even being aware of the danger. Sometimes the drug addiction is seen from the black and white perspective of the common sense, which is created by the people that have never used drugs. The user perspective is very important, as it allows understanding the real reasons why people should avoid such experiences.
The first reason why people become involved in drug addiction is the desire to be a part of a group, to share experiences with other significant people. For example, one girl explains that she started to use heroin because her boyfriend did it (Goode, 2015). Thus, most people get involved in drug addiction by their friends. Another reason why people use drugs is the sense of competition. Young people can be proud due to getting multiple experiences that other members of the group have not got yet. Using drugs, especially in a chaotic way, gives the young people a sense of daring and fighting with the system. The third reason to start using drugs is the contrast between the bland straight world, especially that of parents, to an exciting world of drugs. The user describes this experience as being alive, free, and different (Goode, 2015, p. 340). In general, using drugs makes many users feel unique and special.
Some users report that they practice drug microdosing to become more mindful, and concentrated and to achieve success, as other people in their community do. Sometimes, people use drugs for spiritual reasons, trying to find themselves . For example, they compare psychedelics with ten years of therapy in a single session (The Times, 2018). They report being told that this is an overwhelming experience of being unself-conscious . Thus, spiritual reasons and the desire to experience another state of mind are one of the reasons for taking drugs for the first time.
Thus, there are several significant reasons for starting using drugs. They include the desire to be successful and brave within a group of friends, the striving for some extreme experience, and spiritual causes. Drug addiction results from the protest against the norms of the bland parent world. Young people tend to prove that they are adult enough to break the rules and are not silly enough to get addicted.
Reference
Goode E. (2015). Drugs in American society (9th ed). McGraw-Hill higher education.
Does the new middle-class dinner party treats? A tiny dose of LSD (before dessert); Its become a brain enhancer for the SiliconValley elite and now its the secret vice for stressed-out parents over here. What happened when Jessica Griffiths took the Class A drug for the first time with her friends from the school run? (2018, March 31). The Times (London, England), 24.
The world community considers drug addiction to be one of the most severe problems of this century. In his book, Goode (2014) distinguishes four types of drug use: legal instrumental, legal recreational, illegal instrumental, and illegal recreational. The first type legal instrumental use of narcotic substances refers to using legally available substances for specific purposes other than getting high. For example, using medical drugs to get rid of anxiety or depression, or to increase productivity at work. An example of the instrumental use of legal drugs would be purchasing caffeine pills for use as an energetic. Initially, caffeine pills are used as a blood pressure booster, but they can also be used to boost energy.
The second way to use drugs is through legal recreational use. This mode involves the use of legal substances to achieve a state of intoxication. These substances may be medicinal for example, marijuana, which is legal in some states, can be used for recreational purposes. Non-medical substances may also be used for example, acetone can be used as a snuff that has a narcotic effect. Another method is called illegal instrumental this is the use of illegal drugs for any purpose other than purely recreational use, for example, using such substances to improve sleep or increase work efficiency. An example of such use would be using illicit substances for pain relief in the absence of alternatives.
The final use of narcotic substances is the most recognizable illegal recreational use. This means that a person uses illegal drugs to get high. These drugs can range from light to very heavy, but they are always used for the same purpose (Levent & Davelaar, 2019). An example of this method of drug use could be smoking marijuana after a workday without any health consequences (in states where it is illegal) or using heroin which causes serious mental health problems.
In his book, Goode (2014) cites an interview with a certain girl who had an experience with cocaine and ecstasy use and called it an example of an illegal instrumental way of using drugs. I agree that the reason why the girl used these drugs could well be called instrumental. The fact is that she did not use cocaine to simply become under the influence but to cope with long work sessions as a dominatrix.
The work environment itself was not conducive to a good state of mind afterward. Every man expected the girl to understand their strange sexual fantasies, so the cocaine helped her cope. This is an indication of the instrumental use of drugs consumption not for mere enjoyment per se. In addition, it is worth considering the fact that the girls first experience of cocaine use was a big shock for her and was not a pleasant experience. She says that she did not plan to use the drug in the future, which further confirms the claim that the girl did not use cocaine to get intoxicated. This example illustrates the difference between a sociological study of drug use and a pharmaceutical study. This is shown first of all because, from the perspective of pharmacology, the cause of using drugs is irrelevant; what matters is the use itself. From the sociological perspective, the reason for use plays an important role and helps establish a clearer picture of addiction.
References
Goode, E. (2014). Drugs in American society. McGraw-Hill.
Levent, A., & Davelaar, E. J. (2019). Illegal drug use and prospective memory: A systematic review. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 204(1), 135-141. Web.